FS#37017 - would like more verbose "URL" descriptor for pacman Query info
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by James (thx1138) - Saturday, 21 September 2013, 18:04 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 23 December 2022, 13:43 GMT
Opened by James (thx1138) - Saturday, 21 September 2013, 18:04 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 23 December 2022, 13:43 GMT
|
Details
Summary and Info:
When displaying the query info, as for instance with "pacman -Qi mkinitcpio", the output lists "URL" instead of the more verbose "Upstream URL" or "Source URL". This is all fine and well if the user already knows that "URL" refers to the "Upstream URL" and that Arch Linux prefers to have package bugs reported directly to the upstream package maintainer and not to the Arch Linux packagers, unlike some other distributions. It may seem like a small point, BUT, for the new user, perhaps looking for the "Maintainer", or for the "Source URL", or for somewhere to report a package "bug", this can be perplexing. My request and suggestion would be: don't be perplexing. Replace the short descriptor "URL" with a longer descriptor, such as "Source URL" or "Upstream URL". The phrase "Source URL" or "Upstream URL" is not longer than the other descriptors, such as "Installed Size", and the more verbose phrase makes immediately clear that the package URL is not an "Arch Linux Package" URL, but instead, a "Source" or "Upstream" URL. And in this case, for "mkinitcpio", Arch Linux _is_ the Source/Upstream for this package! So, perhaps a "WTF?" moment can be avoided. The "mkinitcpio" URL, which is shown as "http://www.archlinux.org/", is probably, technically, wrong, since it is not a URL for the mkinitcpio _package_, which would be "https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/any/mkinitcpio/". Thanks James |
This task depends upon
changing URL to ProjectURL sounds ok, but it would need to be changed in many places to be consistant.
Where the package information page is distinct and different from the actual "source-code" page, as, for instance, if there were a git repository for the actual source-code, then the package information page is probably the most useful link.
The term "Package URL" also seems succinct, and avoids the idea of "How far upstream is the beginning?" or "Is 'upstream' just an intermediary?"
And then, there could also be a pacman info link to each Arch Linux package information page. But search engines already work well for that.
"man 5 PKGBUILD" has
url
This field contains a URL that is associated with the software being packaged. Typically the project’s website.
I don't understand what you mean by "not [for] the ... packages", as distinct from "associated with the software being packaged", unless you were thinking I meant to suggest the Arch Linux package page, which I did not mean to suggest.
I am simply looking for some more clarity from "URL", without having to know to first read the PKGBUILD man page - which I did not know to do. In some cases, the listed "URL" entry for a package is wrong, or at least "not correct", which is what set me off on this, trying to find the actual source-code maintainer.
James